A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The reason the first portion of this is usually omitted is because it just provides a justification for the second clause. In no reading of this is the second clause dependent on the first. An armed populace contributes to a well regulated militia.

You had me until that last line. If you are arguing that the "right to bear arms" is independent of the "militia" clause, then that is a plausible reading (i.e., you don't need to be in a militia to bear arms). However, if your last statement is the interpretation, how are we ensuring that our current "militia" is "well regulated"? I would certainly argue that enabling anyone access to assault rifles would constitute a horribly regulated militia.

Let me get this straight: the plain meaning of the 2nd Ammendment is to prevent congress from dismantling the military? In what context does that make sense, unless of course you wish for it to mean that. What other ammendments apply to collective, as opposed to individual rights?

Bracketing the issues with something like 'plain meaning' even existing (which I think is nonsensical), the amendments were conceptualized as clear limitations on federal power. Most of those limitations were written as individual rights against the national government, but it is totally plausible to read some as potentially being rights belonging to states, especially since it wasn't until the 20th century that the courts began interpreting these rights as rights inhering in a person against both federal and state governments. Originally states could violate quite a bit of the Bill of Rights and that was perfectly acceptable. If the intention was to establish these rights as rights inhering in people against claims of external power (which seems to be what you're implying) that never would have flown

_________________"Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."--FDR

You had me until that last line. If you are arguing that the "right to bear arms" is independent of the "militia" clause, then that is a plausible reading (i.e., you don't need to be in a militia to bear arms). However, if your last statement is the interpretation, how are we ensuring that our current "militia" is "well regulated"? I would certainly argue that enabling anyone access to assault rifles would constitute a horribly regulated militia.

According to the internet, so you know its gotta be accurate:

www.constitution.org wrote:

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Additionally, one might expect a militia to be armed with appropriate weaponry for the task of militia-ing. In the modern era this would probably mean semi-automatic, detachable magazine fed rifles.

Then of course that pesky hyphen could make for a significant difference in interpretation, and then I've got nothing.

stip wrote:

Bracketing the issues with something like 'plain meaning' even existing (which I think is nonsensical), the amendments were conceptualized as clear limitations on federal power. Most of those limitations were written as individual rights against the national government, but it is totally plausible to read some as potentially being rights belonging to states, especially since it wasn't until the 20th century that the courts began interpreting these rights as rights inhering in a person against both federal and state governments. Originally states could violate quite a bit of the Bill of Rights and that was perfectly acceptable. If the intention was to establish these rights as rights inhering in people against claims of external power (which seems to be what you're implying) that never would have flown.

The 2nd amendment in particular was incorporated via the 14th rather recently. Prior it presumably only applied to the feds. Also, presumably states would have more leeway in restricting firearms (especially California, which it turns out has no such guarantee to arms in its constitution). You might find this application versus the states to be a bridge too far but this is in keeping with most of the rest of the Bill of Rights, which have similarly been found to restrict states as well.

I don't quite understand an alternative interpretation which prohibits congress from dismantling the regular armed forces. I'm fairly certain the organizational structure of the armed forces was defined elsewhere in the document so why sandwich it between nine other clauses which specifically restrict the federal government with respect to enacting legislation or other acts that effect individuals.

I thought I'd ask about ideas anyone had that would realistically attempt to help reduce gun violence currently.

I appreciate that the discussion in this thread has shifted to constitutional rights but saw a clip the other night about various programs that have been put in place over the years that offer voluntary 'buy backs' of guns by local organizations in different cities - using a range of different funds- some private, some government funded, some a mixture, which give people an opportunity to turn in a gun - even broken ones etc, and receive things like certificates to local stores (in small dollar amounts - 20, 50, 100, whatever) with no legal ramifications - basically an easy way for people to turn in illegal weapons (or just weapons that are no longer wanted) without having to worry about being arrested or fined for it - and it ultimately removed thousands of weapons from the streets.

this looks like a good idea but am wondering what other things could be done that doesn't infringe on a gun-owner's right to own a weapon and still helps control access to them...

Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 1:04 amPosts: 2057Location: The end of the spiral...

malice wrote:

I thought I'd ask about ideas anyone had that would realistically attempt to help reduce gun violence currently.

I appreciate that the discussion in this thread has shifted to constitutional rights but saw a clip the other night about various programs that have been put in place over the years that offer voluntary 'buy backs' of guns by local organizations in different cities - using a range of different funds- some private, some government funded, some a mixture, which give people an opportunity to turn in a gun - even broken ones etc, and receive things like certificates to local stores (in small dollar amounts - 20, 50, 100, whatever) with no legal ramifications - basically an easy way for people to turn in illegal weapons (or just weapons that are no longer wanted) without having to worry about being arrested or fined for it - and it ultimately removed thousands of weapons from the streets.

this looks like a good idea but am wondering what other things could be done that doesn't infringe on a gun-owner's right to own a weapon and still helps control access to them...

I've heard of various "buy back" programs over the years, and I think they are a good idea for people who have a firearm they want to get rid of. I suppose people end up with unwanted guns because a family member dies and leaves it behind, or maybe they just decide they don't want it anymore, or whatever, but I wouldn't imagine many gun owners decide to go this route given the minor incentives that are offered. Plus, people voluntarily turning in their weapons are highly unlikely to be the sort of people that would commit crime with a weapon. But, at the least, I guess it theoretically leaves less guns laying around.

The scary thing about this whole situation is that I don't really see a way for us to prevent this sort of thing from happening again without a massive shift in how our culture views guns--which is very unlikely to happen anytime soon. As someone who owns several guns, I really don't have an issue with an assault rifle ban. You have to draw the line somewhere on what sort of firearm people are reasonably entitled to own, and while some people will argue that banning assault rifles will do little to diminish violent crime (there are stats that suggest very few crimes are actually committed with these sorts of weapons--the ones that are, however, tend to be high profile), I think it is a good place to draw that line. That said, this most recent attack could have just as easily been carried out by someone carrying pistols. Some ideas, such as psych evals, and heavy background checks have been mentioned in this thread, and I think those things are a logical starting point, but short of going back in time and un-inventing the gun (or erasing the 2nd Amendment), I don't see this as a problem that is going away anytime soon. And that sucks. I can only hope we can find a way to detect the warning signs in people that are capable of these sorts of attacks and figure out a way to help.

The "Fast and Furious" saga continues. An ATF agent at the Phoenix office privately sells a 'cop killer assault weapon' (the Brady campaign does it, why can't I?) and it later shows up at a mexican shootout. The agent also purgured himself on the application to buy the gun initially but does anyone really expect that he'll get in trouble?

I thought I'd ask about ideas anyone had that would realistically attempt to help reduce gun violence currently.

I appreciate that the discussion in this thread has shifted to constitutional rights but saw a clip the other night about various programs that have been put in place over the years that offer voluntary 'buy backs' of guns by local organizations in different cities - using a range of different funds- some private, some government funded, some a mixture, which give people an opportunity to turn in a gun - even broken ones etc, and receive things like certificates to local stores (in small dollar amounts - 20, 50, 100, whatever) with no legal ramifications - basically an easy way for people to turn in illegal weapons (or just weapons that are no longer wanted) without having to worry about being arrested or fined for it - and it ultimately removed thousands of weapons from the streets.

this looks like a good idea but am wondering what other things could be done that doesn't infringe on a gun-owner's right to own a weapon and still helps control access to them...

I've heard of various "buy back" programs over the years, and I think they are a good idea for people who have a firearm they want to get rid of. I suppose people end up with unwanted guns because a family member dies and leaves it behind, or maybe they just decide they don't want it anymore, or whatever, but I wouldn't imagine many gun owners decide to go this route given the minor incentives that are offered. Plus, people voluntarily turning in their weapons are highly unlikely to be the sort of people that would commit crime with a weapon. But, at the least, I guess it theoretically leaves less guns laying around.

The scary thing about this whole situation is that I don't really see a way for us to prevent this sort of thing from happening again without a massive shift in how our culture views guns--which is very unlikely to happen anytime soon. As someone who owns several guns, I really don't have an issue with an assault rifle ban. You have to draw the line somewhere on what sort of firearm people are reasonably entitled to own, and while some people will argue that banning assault rifles will do little to diminish violent crime (there are stats that suggest very few crimes are actually committed with these sorts of weapons--the ones that are, however, tend to be high profile), I think it is a good place to draw that line. That said, this most recent attack could have just as easily been carried out by someone carrying pistols. Some ideas, such as psych evals, and heavy background checks have been mentioned in this thread, and I think those things are a logical starting point, but short of going back in time and un-inventing the gun (or erasing the 2nd Amendment), I don't see this as a problem that is going away anytime soon. And that sucks. I can only hope we can find a way to detect the warning signs in people that are capable of these sorts of attacks and figure out a way to help.

what about imposing limits on the number of weapons a gun owner can own? I guess I'm trying to figure out how vital it is to people who want to have weapons for personal safety to feel they can own anything and everything (that's legal, as responsible gun owners, I mean)?

there's a lot of us vs. them in the country about gun ownership, which I can understand but that won't ever go away so am wondering about things that can be agreed on by everyone as reasonable ways to be more secure in the country without disregarding the rights of people to own weapons...

Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 1:04 amPosts: 2057Location: The end of the spiral...

malice wrote:

what about imposing limits on the number of weapons a gun owner can own? I guess I'm trying to figure out how vital it is to people who want to have weapons for personal safety to feel they can own anything and everything (that's legal, as responsible gun owners, I mean)?

there's a lot of us vs. them in the country about gun ownership, which I can understand but that won't ever go away so am wondering about things that can be agreed on by everyone as reasonable ways to be more secure in the country without disregarding the rights of people to own weapons...

What impact do you think it would have if we were to limit the number of guns a person should own? In the posession of someone intent on evil, one gun is too many. And I think that is the thing that most gun owners find so frustrating about a lot of gun legislation. You can limit things like magazine size, weapon style, number of weapons a person owns, etc, but someone bent on destruction is still going to have the tools at their disposal to kill a lot of people--hence the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" mantra that you hear over and over. And then those people get branded as selfish gun-loving bastards who don't care about victims of gun crime (maybe some of them are)--when in reality all they are really doing is voicing their opposition to laws that don't seem all that effective in the first place. A lot of anti-gun people can't seem to wrap their minds around this concept--and it is central to the issue.

My possible opposition to whatever new laws will be proposed will not be rooted in what I feel is a violation of my rights as a gun owner. I'd just hate to see us pass a rash of new laws regulating weapons without taking steps to address the root causes of these sorts of tragedies. If this guy had rammed a speeding car into a crowd of schoolkids leaving the building, we wouldn't discuss his weapon of choice--we'd (hopefully) try to understand how he came to a point in his life where he saw fit to murder innocent children. And I think that it the apporach we need to take here. I'm certain some new gun laws are going to come of this, and ultimately I probably won't care so long as we don't make that the landmark of our action. I really don't know how you prevent these sorts of things. As long as guns are legal in any capacity in a society, you are going to have people who are going to use them to kill others. It's a sad fact.

My possible opposition to whatever new laws will be proposed will not be rooted in what I feel is a violation of my rights as a gun owner. I'd just hate to see us pass a rash of new laws regulating weapons without taking steps to address the root causes of these sorts of tragedies. If this guy had rammed a speeding car into a crowd of schoolkids leaving the building, we wouldn't discuss his weapon of choice--we'd (hopefully) try to understand how he came to a point in his life where he saw fit to murder innocent children. And I think that it the approach we need to take here. I'm certain some new gun laws are going to come of this, and ultimately I probably won't care so long as we don't make that the landmark of our action. I really don't know how you prevent these sorts of things. As long as guns are legal in any capacity in a society, you are going to have people who are going to use them to kill others. It's a sad fact.

I don't like when gun ownership is conceptualized as a right. Guns are a tool, and can and should be subject to regulation just like we regulate any tool that potentially poses a risk to others. I don't have a right to drive either. Gun ownership and drivers licenses are useful privileges we grant people because of the benefits they bring the people who possess them, but those benefits have to be measured against the larger social costs and harms.

_________________"Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."--FDR

The fact that the NRA will cart out its top lobbyist to decry video games, movies, and music videos-- fucking music videos?-- is a chickenshit move that will apparently never go out of style. I just can't wrap my head around this. A bunch of kids got mowed down in a school. We're gonna say this was because of Call of Duty and 50 Cent? Beyond spineless.

_________________"Writing is easy. All you do is stare at a blank sheet of paper until drops of blood form on your forehead." -- Gene Fowler

The fact that the NRA will cart out its top lobbyist to decry video games, movies, and music videos-- fucking music videos?-- is a chickenshit move that will apparently never go out of style. I just can't wrap my head around this. A bunch of kids got mowed down in a school. We're gonna say this was because of Call of Duty and 50 Cent? Beyond spineless.

don't worry. The solution is to just put more armed guards in schools. I wonder how they would react if someone suggested funding that suggestion with excise taxes on guns.

_________________"Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."--FDR

The fact that the NRA will cart out its top lobbyist to decry video games, movies, and music videos-- fucking music videos?-- is a chickenshit move that will apparently never go out of style. I just can't wrap my head around this. A bunch of kids got mowed down in a school. We're gonna say this was because of Call of Duty and 50 Cent? Beyond spineless.

don't worry. The solution is to just put more armed guards in schools. I wonder how they would react if someone suggested funding that suggestion with excise taxes on guns.

It's funny you say that, because that was my exact next thought. Who's going to pay for the 100,000+ cops (I'm assuming it's cops, and not just volunteers or Citizens on Patrol, god help us) that are going to suddenly need to materialize out of thin air? It would be comedic if the stakes weren't so high.

_________________"Writing is easy. All you do is stare at a blank sheet of paper until drops of blood form on your forehead." -- Gene Fowler

The fact that the NRA will cart out its top lobbyist to decry video games, movies, and music videos-- fucking music videos?-- is a chickenshit move that will apparently never go out of style. I just can't wrap my head around this. A bunch of kids got mowed down in a school. We're gonna say this was because of Call of Duty and 50 Cent? Beyond spineless.

You say that but have you read the lyrics for songs like "down with the sickness"?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum